@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 225


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
SubstantialFrivolity


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
I'm not even supposed to be here today

				
				
				

				

					4 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 225


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Old Controversial
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree. But it's not rape.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's a whole lot of people in this thread who don't understand that being in the wrong isn't a zero-sum game. Like you said, it's hard to tell if the woman actually acted like the teens claim she did (since they have every incentive to lie and all), but still. Assuming they are telling the truth, it sounds like everyone here acted poorly.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As I said, being in the wrong is not a zero sum game. They can be completely wrong in their actions, and she can be wrong in hers. I certainly am not saying that she was, because (as you, @Amadan and I all agree) they are likely to be lying just to save face. All I'm saying is that, if they are telling the truth, the nurse can be wrong without absolving them one bit.




I truly don’t understand your charity to them.




I'm not trying to defend them, and I don't understand why you act like I am. I'm simply pushing back on the idea that to say the nurse acted poorly means that the kids are absolved for their actions.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-11
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It provides a sense of pride when beating the game. The fact that some people cannot beat the game but you can, is a potential source of pride. If you enable everyone to beat the game, it is gone.




This is, to be blunt, a character flaw and not a good argument against difficulty settings. If your sense of pride in your own accomplishments depends on others not being able to do it, that reflects pretty poorly on you.


I find your other arguments flawed as well (though I don't want to go point by point because I find that kind of obnoxious). I think that the "it doesn't affect you" argument for lower difficulty settings is correct, and that your arguments don't really counter it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There is just too much of the Bible that is objectively false at this point that I don't know how a Mottizen would go about gaining faith.




I think it should go without saying, but obviously people do not share your opinion that many parts of the Bible are objectively false. But without knowing what your specific points are it's hard to really say more.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How is paying to rent a bike that's available wrong?




Except that isn't what happened according to the teens. According to them, what she did was to scan a bike that one of them was sitting on and had said he was going to still use. This is roughly equivalent to if you find someone at the library who has a book on the desk in front of them, who says "sorry but I'm going to check this book out still", and you snatch it off the desk and check it out yourself. That isn't breaking any laws or anything but would be kind of a dick move.


I'm not saying that this nurse is the worst person in the world, or that she should be fired, or anything like that. I am just saying that as the kids tell it, she was kind of rude to them. That's all.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-15
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Assuming they can consent, no. It's very bad and should wind you in prison for a long time. But it's not rape, because that word means something specific. "Rape" is not a catch all term for "any evil behavior involving sex".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				My Clients, The Liars
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the far bigger problem is horrendously poor impulse control and sociopathic tendencies




This (the impulse control, not sociopathic tendencies) reminds me a lot of when I used to work at a call center. The place paid minimum wage, which isn't much to live on even in northeast Wisconsin, and as you might expect they got correspondingly poor employees. I would on a regular basis hear people lamenting how they weren't going to be able to pay for $important_thing... right after they were talking about how they bought a new iPhone, or took lots of unpaid time off work. They seemed to truly not have any idea that the two things were related, or that the solution was to have more discipline about their actions.


The fact that I wasn't truly interacting with the full spectrum of humanity at this job (cause after all these were people who could at least function well enough to get a job) is something I have thought about over the years. Hearing your stories (you and @FarNearEverywhere ), I have no idea how you guys manage to do it. It sounds so frustrating.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your mistake throughout this thread is assuming that anyone is "tolerating" and "enabling" what the teens did. Nobody is. You need to learn the distinction between "not issuing condemnations as fervently as possible" and "tolerating the behavior".


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-11
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is very simple. If you consent (no matter how ill founded the consent is), then it's not rape. I similarly think that statutory rape is very much not rape, and that the only reason it's called such is because people torture the meaning of words to try to give something moral weight.


One of the problems of American culture (or perhaps even human culture in general) is that people try to make everything maximally bad as a rhetorical tactic. They aren't willing to say "this is bad but not (really bad thing)". Well I'm willing to bite that bullet. If you have sex with someone too drunk to effectively say no, even if you were feeding them drinks to achieve that, it's not rape as long as they consented. We can, and should, frown on and punish that behavior. But it's not rape.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I have literally never in my life seen a shirt or sweater that costs $200+. The most expensive shirts I can get cost $100 each, and those are dress shirts (which most people will only ever need one or two of). Everything else is less, often significantly less. The most expensive jeans I have ever seen are Levi's that sometimes cost upwards of $100/pair, but you don't need many and they last years and years. Most people only need one suit, two if they're really feeling fancy and want different colors (and again, those last for years and years).


I'm definitely with @FiveHourMarathon on this one. I can imagine someone who is trying to spend massive amounts of money might spend $10k+/year, for sure. But I can't imagine how someone might have normal clothing habits where they spend that kind of money without even meaning to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At least with Am14S3, there is a requirement that an individual "engaged in" insurrection, yet even there, we have briefs by eminent Constitutional scholars submitted to the Supreme Court saying that it is sufficient for Trump to have simply done nothing to stop it.




That's true, but let's be blunt: that's not an opinion those scholars arrived at based on an impartial reading of the Constitution. It's motivated reasoning which stems from the fact that they really don't like Trump and want to see him go down regardless of whether he deserves it. It's not an example to follow.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for December 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
One of the other members of this forum (I can't remember his name right now, stupid brain) is utterly convinced that he is so ugly that he can never have any success with women unless he settles for a literal meth head or someone so obese that he would be her caregiver more than her boyfriend/husband. He has further convinced himself that the way to solve this is to undertake a somewhat dangerous trek through the Alaskan wilderness ("the hock"), because apparently women will be able to subconsciously sense that he is the kind of man who risked his life and lived to tell the tale. He believes that this is a quality women value, and that this is the best way for him to attain it (other ways are being a soldier and living through war, shit like that).


This dude has had basically everyone (myself included) tell him that he's full of shit, that he has perfectly reasonable prospects with women as it is, that even if he didn't this won't fix them because women don't actually value men risking their lives, etc. He does not ever listen to anyone, but continued to post about his ideas every single week in the wellness Wed threads without a word of our advice getting through to him. He eventually got banned for this, because it was really obnoxious (though he was a good enough poster outside of this single topic, it came up a lot).


Anyways, as I recall dude is planning to do the hock in February, so this is basically @benjaminikuta giving us a "he seems to be really going through with it you guys" sort of update.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There's nothing wrong, for example, with having wargaming, Magic The Gathering, and videogames as your main hobbies, but these are not high status activities, and if you lead with these you look like someone who simply doesn't notice what's high status and what's not.




I think you have some valid points in this paragraph, but I think one thing you are overlooking here is that many (myself included, though I'm happily married at this point) explicitly do not want someone who cares about status in the first place. Someone who rejects someone because their hobbies are "low status" is someone I want out of my pool ASAP, because I consider chasing status to be a serious character flaw. So depending on what you are looking for, this item you have listed as a negative is actually a potential positive.


Also I personally subscribe to the theory that you should get the most contentious things out of the way pretty quickly (not on the first date, but within the first few months or so). If something about you is a dealbreaker for someone, no amount of time is going to undo that - so you may as well get it over with and not waste time on a doomed-to-fail relationship. So in that sense I also think "be yourself" is very good advice, because it ensures you aren't faffing about dating someone who is never going to like you anyways.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What? No they don't. Only a minority of drivers go that fast anywhere I've lived.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Site Rollback to February 3rd
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can't tell if serious security bug, or Zorba is having a schizophrenic moment.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Nobody cares (well, apparently except you) if the Fremen are realistic. They're cool. And for the rest, even if 40k does it more to your liking, the fact remains that Dune did it first and deserves credit for that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.




Because the way politics works in the US, all the nuances and caveats you listed (and which are a key part of your overall point) would go completely unheard by people. We live in the country of the soundbite (not that we are necessarily unique in this, of course). The instant gun rights advocates said "I admit that if all guns were confiscated, murder rates would go down", every single gun control proponent would be writing editorials that said "even gun rights advocates admit gun control works". They would run campaign ads that go "Senator so-and-so admits gun control works (insert sound clip here). Yet he voted down these measures every time, blah blah he is the devil vote for me instead." In short, it would be a complete disaster for gun rights and for the careers of those who advance them. The latter outcome is probably the bigger of the two, of course, since politicians are pretty much the most self-serving creatures in existence. But even people honestly considering the cause of gun rights would have some concern about the former outcome.


It's kind of like when Scott Alexander writes an essay about some controversial topic or other. Every single time, he includes a million lines trying to say "yes, if you take this one sentence out of context it sounds bad but that's not what I'm saying and you fail at reading comprehension if you think that". Every single time, there's at least one person who is unscrupulous enough to take that sentence out of context and use it to demonize him. And every single time, Scott is caught off-guard because he made the mistake of believing he was dealing with people who are acting in good faith. Or at least until he stopped writing about controversial topics (which is probably the right call for him).


So yeah, that's why gun rights advocates don't do what you're suggesting. I'm not saying that's praiseworthy of them, or even that it's merely acceptable in a "I don't like it but I understand" kind of way. Just that's why. The gun rights people are playing politics, and politics is full of flat-out evil people who will twist your words into a weapon against you the instant they can. So they prioritize not giving those people ammunition.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, because they didn't consent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The end result of invasion of the Mexican army attacking or migrants is the same.




Even if that's true (which is a big if, one I disagree strongly with), the end result isn't all that matters. Invasion requires intent as well as results.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for April 12, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To be fair, your price range (which is what, 15-25k USD or something?) is nicely lined up with the safe/boring/respectable market segment. Not saying you can't get fun cars in that range, but the practical cars dominate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Dude, 3 GB of RAM usage is in no way acceptable. You're saying "I don't know where this myth came from" while providing evidence that it's not a myth at all. VSCode is a memory hog, like all Electron apps.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for February 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, people called you an alcoholic because you suggested drinking as a solution to someone's problems. Which I think is harsh but I get it. If someone needs alcohol to enjoy activities, then that's a strong sign of alcoholism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First of all, thanks for writing all this out. I'm going to try to address all this as best I can, though I need to stress I'm very much not a theologian, or an apologist, or even a teacher in the church. I'm just a guy. My goal is to at least try to give you my view of these issues, so that even if you're not personally convinced (I'm not that good at rhetoric, I won't take it too hard lol) you at least will hopefully feel that what I've said is something a reasonable person can believe. I'm Catholic, so that's the perspective I'm bringing to this. Also @TheDag, @urquan and @FarNearEverywhere, please chime in if there is something I've missed or something I get wrong. I'm probably going to have more bullet points than you, as this is my third time writing this post (stupid website keeps eating it when I click on links) and I found that a lot of your points have sub-points. I don't really know how to order all that nicely within the constraints of the site, so bear with me.


First, it's important to note that the fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of Christianity is not something all denominations share. From a Catholic perspective, those people are in pretty serious error in fact. So a lot of things I noticed you said like "why does the Bible say factually untrue thing x" are just not an issue for other traditions. Specifically, the Catholics (and others tbf) believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, not that it was directly written by God. That means that the core message about God and our salvation is infallible, but plenty of other things are fallible. For example, if the Bible says "King Bigwig was succeeded by his son Mightyface" in one book, and "King Bigwig was succeeded by his son Weaksauce" in another, the Catholic take on that is "maybe one of those authors got it wrong, shit happens". We're OK with that, because the detail of which king succeeded whom isn't really central to God's message to us (and so on for other minor details of course).


Furthermore, it's important to note that the Bible is not one cohesive book. The men who wrote it down were working in various literary styles and speaking to different social contexts. There are books of history yes, but also books of poetry, and books of raw moral teaching, and books of myths. So not only is it possible that each author is fallible, you have to interpret their words through the lens of cultural context and intended style. All of which makes it pretty challenging to interpret the Bible, but means that we very much do not believe that each and every sentence of the Bible is an eternal truth directly handed to us by God. Fundamentalists believe that yes, but by no means all Christians (or even most Christians, really).


I also wanted to note that it seemed like more than one of your arguments basically boiled down to "I think you can get around this, but then that's not consistent with the Bible". I think that yes, some of the hypothetical counterarguments you mentioned aren't consistent with the fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of the Bible. But that is very much not the only interpretation (or the main interpretation) among Christians! You can't really expect people to hold to an interpretation of the Bible that they never professed to begin with, after all. So I think that significantly weakens your arguments in this area, since they are colored so much by a particular interpretation of the Bible that most Christians don't hold.


With those important overarching points out of the way, it's time for ye olde bulleted list.


    

  • 

    Genesis (written by Moses iirc) is fundamentally a mythological book. Catholics don't generally believe it's meant to be taken literally, but that the author was using the myths of the ancient near East to try to teach those people about the origins of the world in terms they would understand (which of course doesn't remotely come close to our modern understanding of biology, geology and so on). The important takeaway from the creation story isn't "God made the world in seven days just like we understand days" (which wouldn't make sense in various ways), but "God is the supreme being who created everything, not like your gods who are either glorified mortals or forces of nature". Similarly, the story of Adam isn't generally understood as "there was a literal serpent who got Adam and Eve to eat a literal apple", but as a myth which seeks to illustrate how sin has perverted God's design for the world and placed us all in dire need of a savior.
    

    • 

  • 

    The perception of God isn't eternal because we ourselves are not eternal. How could we have perfect knowledge of God in this life, imperfect as we are? It's like Paul says: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly...". It's not really fair to expect our understanding of God to not change over time. God himself doesn't change, of course, but human ideas of him do.
    

    • 

  • 

    Why does God allow different interpretations of the Bible (at least some of which must be wrong)? Good question and I don't have an answer. I think you should be pretty skeptical of anyone who does. I'm content with the "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" verse on this one, but I can't fault you if you aren't. It's just not something that is an impediment to my faith because I trust God knows what he's doing.
    

    • 

  • 

    It is true that a lot of the Old Testament comes down to divine dick measuring. But to me, this makes perfect sense in light of the "human authors are writing to the context they live in" interpretation. God revealed truths about himself to these writers, and they communicated those truths in the way they thought would make the most sense to their contemporary audience. For example, the book of Job. I think that this book is best understood as poetry, and meant in the same way good art is made today: it uses the imagery of the story to reveal something true to us. Specifically, that if we trust God then we will ultimately be rewarded (note that it may not be in this life, but we will still be rewarded). I don't know whether or not there was an actual man that Job was based on, but if there was I doubt that his life went exactly as depicted in the book. But that's OK, because the message of "trust God" is the important part.
    

    • 

  • 

    I would not say that there is a consistent Christian view of hell. Even among Catholics there isn't unity as far as I know. That's primarily because the Bible just doesn't talk that much about hell to the best of my knowledge. As far as I'm aware Catholic doctrine on hell is that a) it exists, b) some people will end up there, c) it's an awful place to be. It's important to note here that the reason hell is awful isn't because God designed it as a punishment. It's because God is the source of everything good, and hell is separation from God. Therefore, there can be nothing good in hell (not even the sinful pleasures we can experience in this life), because the source of all goodness is not there. To the best of my knowledge, the imagery of a lake of fire where you get tormented by demons as a punishment is not something the Church teaches. Nor would I say it's something that there's broad agreement on.
    

    • 

  • 

    I certainly don't think it's true that you have to believe in young earth creationism, or any of that other stuff, in order to avoid hell. There are a lot of ideas about hell, but I'm most convinced by CS Lewis' thoughts on this topic. The people in hell are there not because God sends them to eternal soul prison, but because they chose to be there. As Lewis said, the gates of hell are barred from the inside. I do not know if the Church has specific teaching on whether people could theoretically change their mind, so perhaps hell isn't eternal for those who wind up there. I don't know, and again I don't think there's any sort of broad Christian consensus on this topic.
    

    • 

  • 

    I don't imagine that this will surprise you, but I don't think that God allowed the Catholics to twist the Bible for centuries. I think that is nonsense born more of hate than anything else. There's still a lot of bad blood between some Protestants and some Catholics, and it's horrible. But I think that the idea that God let the Catholic Church essentially damn people to hell for centuries through bad readings of scripture is just plain false.
    

    • 

  • 

    So far as I'm aware, the Church does not teach that you must believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be saved. It simply teaches that all salvation is through him. For example, the Church teaches that all the Israelites who lived before Jesus' incarnation were saved by his sacrifice, even though it happened (from a mortal timeline's POV) after they lived. The Church also teaches that while its teachings and sacraments are a sure path to heaven, God isn't limited by such things and can save anyone he wants through any means he wants. Some believe that for those who die never having heard the message of Jesus Christ, God still gives them the grace to choose to follow the morals they were taught (and that by accepting that grace, they can still go to heaven through the power of Jesus' sacrifice even if they never knew about him in those terms). The Church very deliberately does not teach that any given person is in hell, because we simply cannot know this side of the grave. It does teach that certain people are in heaven, but that's another topic.
    

    • 

  • 

    I know what you mean about people on the ground witnessing miracles having a leg up, but at the same time I'm not sure that's true. The Bible records that a lot of people who witnessed miracles chose to not persist in faith in God. The Old Testament is full of this (Exodus has the memorable examples where the people just watched God save them from Pharaoh's armies and then say "God has abandoned us" time and time again as they journey). The New Testament has it too. Judas personally saw Jesus, was one of his closest followers, and would have witnessed him do many miracles personally. He still chose to sell Jesus out. Not only that but he despaired at God's forgiveness even after all he saw (which is what many say was his true sin, not the selling out of Jesus). On this very forum, I've seen people say that if they saw a miracle they would think that they were having a hallucination or that there was a scientific explanation. I think that at some level, no matter what miracles you have seen or not, you have to make the choice to believe.
    

    • 

  • 

    I don't think it's true that someone who pulls the trigger on a gun (I think you mean suicide here?) can't save themselves. I believe that God is not limited by time, and that he can even work in the past from our perspective. I think that it's possible (though we can't know until we get to heaven) that God gave people who committed suicide the chance to repent in the last instant of their life, and that some chose to accept his grace. Again, the Church doesn't say that this is necessarily true, but it is pretty consistent that the stuff the Bible says is a lifeline for our benefit, not a limitation of God. I choose to believe that he reaches even those people who us mortals think are beyond hope.
    

    • 



I think that addresses most of your points (hopefully all, but I might have missed something). Not necessarily in order of course, because some of your arguments are interconnected (for example I kind of touched on the "how is hell just" line of thinking while trying to address your third bullet point, even though it was part of your fourth bullet point). But again, just for emphasis: I'm not saying all of these things are arguments you will necessarily believe. My only goal is to highlight that one does not have to choose between the message of the Bible and the objective truth of the world.


It's taken me a long time to write all of this and it's late enough that I don't have time to do editing passes, but I hope that at least it gives you some food for thought. Again, thank you for the earnest and respectful discussion!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Dude, you need to take off the tinfoil. There's no effort to take control of computers away from you. What you're seeing is the government making efforts to get it so that software for the government is written in memory safe languages. They don't give a shit what individuals do.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-17
		
			
		

    •